Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow CHAP. XIII.: Of the Punishments decreed by Emperors against the Incontinency of Women. - Complete Works, vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws

Return to Title Page for Complete Works, vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws

Search this Title:

CHAP. XIII.: Of the Punishments decreed by Emperors against the Incontinency of Women. - Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, Complete Works, vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws [1748]

Edition used:

The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (London: T. Evans, 1777), 4 vols. Vol. 1.

Part of: Complete Works of Montesquieu, 4 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


CHAP. XIII.

Of the Punishments decreed by Emperors against the Incontinency of Women.

THE Julian law ordained a punishment against adultery. But so far was this law, any more than those afterwards made on the same account, from being a mark of regularity of manners, that, on the contrary, it was a proof of their depravation.

The whole political system, in regard to women, received a change in the monarchical state. The question was no longer to oblige them to a regularity of manners, but to punish their crimes. That new laws were made to punish their crimes was owing to their leaving those transgressions unpunished which were not of so criminal a nature.

The frightful dissolution of manners obliged, indeed, the emperors to enact laws, in order to put some stop to lewdness; but it was not their intention to establish a general reformation. Of this, the positive facts related by historians are a much stronger proof than all these laws can be of the contrary. We may see, in Dio, the conduct of Augustus on this occasion, and in what manner he eluded, both in his prætorian and censorian office, the repeated instances that were made him § for that purpose.

It is true, that we find, in historians, very rigid sentences, passed in the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, against the lewdness of some Roman ladies. But, by shewing us the spirit of those reigns, at the same time, they demonstrate the spirit of those decisions.

The principal design of Augustus and Tiberius was to punish the dissoluteness of their relations. It was not their immorality they punished, but a particular crime of impiety or high-treason* of their own invention, which served to promote a respect for majesty, and answered their private revenge. Hence it is that the Roman historians inveigh so bitterly against this tyranny.

The penalty of the Julian law was small . The emperors insisted that, in passing sentence, the judges should increase the penalty of the law. This was the subject of the invectives of historians. They did not examine whether the women were deserving of punishment, but whether they had violated the law, in order to punish them.

One of the most tyrannical proceedings of Tiberius was the abuse he made of the ancient laws. When he wanted to extend the punishment of a Roman lady beyond that inflicted by the Julian law, he revived the domestic tribunal.

These regulations in respect to women concerned only senatorial families, but not the common people. Pretences were wanted to accuse the great, which were constantly furnished by the dissolute behaviour of the ladies.

In fine, what I have above observed, namely, that regularity of manners is not the principle of monarchy, was never better verified than under those first emperors; and whoever doubts of it needs only read Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal, or Martial.

[§ ]Upon their bringing before him a young man who had married a woman with whom he had before carried on an illicit commerce, he hesitated a long while, not daring to approve or to punish these things. At length, recollecting himself, seditions, says he, have been the cause of very great evils; let us forget them. Dio, book 54. The senate having desired him to give them some regulations in respect to womens morals, he evaded their petition by telling them, that they should chastise their wives in the same manner as he did his: upon which, they desired him to tell them how he behaved to his wife. (I think, a very indiscreet question.)

[* ]Culpam inter viros et fœminas vulgatam gravi nomine læsarum religionum appellando, clementiam majorum suasque ipse leges egrediebatur. Tacit. Annal. lib. 3.

[]This law is given in the Digest; but without mentioning the penalty. It was supposed it was only relegatio, because that of incest was only deportatio. Leg. si quis viduam, ff. de quæst.

[]Proprium id Tiberio fuit, scelera nuper reperta priscis verbis obtegere. Tacit.

[]Adulterii graviorem pœnam deprecatus, ut exemplo majorum propinquis suis ultra ducentesimum lapidem removeretur, suasit. Adultero Manlio Italiâ atque Africâ interdictum est. Tacit. Annal. lib. 2.